Strike one! New Zealand hit with first online infringement warnings

New Zealand music labels have begun pitching the first "strikes" in their country's "three strikes" regime targeting Internet file-swappers. The New Zealand Herald reports that four major ISPs there have received infringement notices that have been passed along to subscribers after the new rule went into effect on September 1.

The scheme involves three warnings of infringement, warnings which are generated by copyright holders and which carry no legal penalty. After three of the warnings, however, copyright holders can haul Internet subscribers before a Copyright Tribunal and seek fines.

One peculiarity of New Zealand's system: it applies to the Internet account holder rather than the person actually accused of sharing the content online. It's certainly one way of solving the perennial doubt over who, exactly, was sitting behind an IP address. As the Herald notes, people are likely to be surprised:

Given that Rihanna and Lady Gaga have a strong teenage fan base, parents responsible for home internet accounts may be in for a shock. This is because the account owner is the one liable under the new law for any offending over an internet connection, regardless of whether they downloaded the content or not.

58 Reader Comments

So do music labels think they're helping their case by cutting people off their internet connections?

Personally if I even got one strike I would never even consider buying from that label again. I would go and tell all my friends too. All these draconian laws only create resentment that will spread within families and to friends.

Doesn't Peter Jackson pretty much own the island at this point? I'm sure he could use the movie studios double-logic backflip accounting practices and claim he has never made a profit and can't pay them.

Some might say it's like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but I haven't bought any new music or movies in years because I simply refuse to give the industry my money. I might buy used from time to time but that doesn't give them money directly. I ended up realizing that I'm better off without them. There is plenty of free stuff (not pirated, which I don't mess around with) to keep one entertained.

So do music labels think they're helping their case by cutting people off their internet connections?

Personally if I even got one strike I would never even consider buying from that label again. I would go and tell all my friends too. All these draconian laws only create resentment that will spread within families and to friends.

With no internet, your odds of acquiring music by buying CD's increases, no? I bet that's how they see it, anyway. CD's aren't going to die until affordable digital distribution is embraced by the industry, and that's a LONG way off.

Just blows my mind how much political time, payroll, and energy is put into this when such worse problems exist than people downloading music.

OH MY GOD! This is wonderful news. Oh man I am excited. All we have to do now is create a proxy virus that just allows us to proxy ourselves through our neighbor(s) and basically multi-infringe on copyright. Then since all neighbors are D/Cd we have a max efficiency broadband connection.

oh my god i am excited.

Let the coding begin!

Wait since we already got botnets, lets get the botnets to just take down a very large % of NZ internet by infringing randomly on basically every f-ing thing out there. Oh this is wonderful WONDERFUL.

I think the kiwi government may be in for a shock when millions of people who never paid any attention to this overreaching law start getting wrapped up in it.

I was thinking the same thing. The people who weren't concerned about this law passing (middle aged parents, though I know I'm generalizing) are arguably the most likely to be affected by this with their young children using unencrypted P2P for file sharing. It will be quite the dose of reality.

Don't know if this is the right approach, but something still needs to be done. The comments that Pete Townshend made recently ring true to me (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-201 ... l-vampire/), and I've heard the same thing from multiple artists at various levels of "success". Regardless of folks feelings about the big, bad labels, loads of artists are the ones paying the heaviest price within the declining music industry.

The labels still make their money, but now they insist in artists footing the bill for all the early years by developing a large fan base and showing good touring success before they will even sign anyone. At that point artists can stay indie and have "moderate" success, or sign with a label if they want to break big (yes, it still makes a difference to have the backing of the labels resources). Most artists never make it to that point.

Everyone was so concerned about the lousy contracts artists would sign that made the labels rich and left the artist in debt. Now the artist is just incurring all the debt up front by trying to do everything themselves, plus they have much less time to do music sabotaging their chance for success. Artists used to be developed by labels and have around 3 albums to "make it" while they developed. This has all but vanished.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

Perhaps it is different down there (obviously since this apparently passed as an enforceable law) but I know over on the US side there is very little law outside traffic law that is strict liability for a criminal matter.

I'm not entirely clear if this is considered a civil/administrative or criminal law but the description of the bill includes: "The revised bill, which everyone agrees is an improvement, comes with a presumption of guilt, the possibility of NZ$15,000 fines, and possible disconnections in the future." Guilt being part of criminal but not civil leads me to assume that it's a criminal statute.

It's slightly amazing that they would impute criminal liability to what, in some cases amounts to the victims of crime. Why would one make the victim of a network intrusion a criminal? It's rather like saying a rape victim is guilty of some form a sexual crime (a directly comparable one doesn't leap to mind) because the way she was dressed made it too easy for her attacker or didn't stop her attacker regardless of her ability to do so.

Don't know if this is the right approach, but something still needs to be done. The comments that Pete Townshend made recently ring true to me (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-201 ... l-vampire/), and I've heard the same thing from multiple artists at various levels of "success". Regardless of folks feelings about the big, bad labels, loads of artists are the ones paying the heaviest price within the declining music industry.

The labels still make their money, but now they insist in artists footing the bill for all the early years by developing a large fan base and showing good touring success before they will even sign anyone. At that point artists can stay indie and have "moderate" success, or sign with a label if they want to break big (yes, it still makes a difference to have the backing of the labels resources). Most artists never make it to that point.

Everyone was so concerned about the lousy contracts artists would sign that made the labels rich and left the artist in debt. Now the artist is just incurring all the debt up front by trying to do everything themselves, plus they have much less time to do music sabotaging their chance for success. Artists used to be developed by labels and have around 3 albums to "make it" while they developed. This has all but vanished.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

Nope I don't think so. You are saying that we need to go out and buy the music so the artist can survive. That is B.S. I'm not paying 25.00 for a CD so the artist can get .50.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

"If you steal music you are still hurting the artist." A sale isn't lost if there was never an intent to purchase.

Artists are responsible for their own financial well being. The number of artists that get signed by a major label, compared to the total number of artists, has always been, and will continue to be, minuscule. Most artists never progress beyond playing gigs in their local area. This was true before online file sharing, and it will be true after.

Deciding to be a full time musician before obtaining a contract has always been risky. Nobody is guaranteed to have a successful career.

Perhaps it is different down there (obviously since this apparently passed as an enforceable law) but I know over on the US side there is very little law outside traffic law that is strict liability for a criminal matter.

I'm not entirely clear if this is considered a civil/administrative or criminal law but the description of the bill includes: "The revised bill, which everyone agrees is an improvement, comes with a presumption of guilt, the possibility of NZ$15,000 fines, and possible disconnections in the future." Guilt being part of criminal but not civil leads me to assume that it's a criminal statute.

It's slightly amazing that they would impute criminal liability to what, in some cases amounts to the victims of crime. Why would one make the victim of a network intrusion a criminal? It's rather like saying a rape victim is guilty of some form a sexual crime (a directly comparable one doesn't leap to mind) because the way she was dressed made it too easy for her attacker or didn't stop her attacker regardless of her ability to do so.

It's not a criminal statute it's civil. There is a tribunal so I'm guessing preponderance of evidence, not assumed guilt, so you start with the charges by the complaining party and you have to move the evidence to 51% in your favor to win. A bill like this would probably not get passed here but it would be legal since in your contract there is a clause making the signer of the contract responsible for how the connection is used. In some areas people have been successfully sued for not making any effort to secure their wireless connections to their cable systems, likewise businesses have been successfully sued for using personal rate cable hookups for public viewing.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

"If you steal music you are still hurting the artist." A sale isn't lost if there was never an intent to purchase.

Artists are responsible for their own financial well being. The number of artists that get signed by a major label, compared to the total number of artists, has always been, and will continue to be, minuscule. Most artists never progress beyond playing gigs in their local area. This was true before online file sharing, and it will be true after.

Deciding to be a full time musician before obtaining a contract has always been risky. Nobody is guaranteed to have a successful career.

Likewise you were never given the "right" to enjoy something you do not pay for. There is also no right to “try before you buy”. The people downloading this stuff obviously want it or are they so mentally deficient and have no sense of the worth of their time to download stuff they do not want? They want it; they just want it for free. This sense of entitlement is ridiculous. There is a theft; it is the permanent loss of the right to be the exclusive distributer. Anyone who downloads something they have no interest in paying for is stealing this right and it is not recoverable. Get over it people there is such a thing as intangible goods it is well defended by a huge amount of case law and no amount of mental masturbation will make it go away. An intangible good is still considered a good and its rights of distribution are real and under current law it is still considered theft. The fines are huge and if you make a penny off of it (real or in goods, services or other intangibles like fame) it could go from civil to criminal which includes the possibility of imprisonment. Now most of the time it’s just not worth going after but that will not be a valid defense if you do end up on the wrong end of the stick.

Don't know if this is the right approach, but something still needs to be done. The comments that Pete Townshend made recently ring true to me (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-201 ... l-vampire/), and I've heard the same thing from multiple artists at various levels of "success". Regardless of folks feelings about the big, bad labels, loads of artists are the ones paying the heaviest price within the declining music industry.

The labels still make their money, but now they insist in artists footing the bill for all the early years by developing a large fan base and showing good touring success before they will even sign anyone. At that point artists can stay indie and have "moderate" success, or sign with a label if they want to break big (yes, it still makes a difference to have the backing of the labels resources). Most artists never make it to that point.

Everyone was so concerned about the lousy contracts artists would sign that made the labels rich and left the artist in debt. Now the artist is just incurring all the debt up front by trying to do everything themselves, plus they have much less time to do music sabotaging their chance for success. Artists used to be developed by labels and have around 3 albums to "make it" while they developed. This has all but vanished.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

Nope I don't think so. You are saying that we need to go out and buy the music so the artist can survive. That is B.S. I'm not paying 25.00 for a CD so the artist can get .50.

I dont want a label to "make" an artist, I want the artist to be talented and stand tall on its own successes. What you stated doesn't scare me, its exactly what we want. Good ridden!

I have heard some amazing local bands that would never have a chance with a label, or would have been changed so much they would have lost what charm their indie local nature gave them. I for one want less Justin Beiber's and more Deertick's.

It's not a criminal statute it's civil. There is a tribunal so I'm guessing preponderance of evidence, not assumed guilt, so you start with the charges by the complaining party and you have to move the evidence to 51% in your favor to win. A bill like this would probably not get passed here but it would be legal since in your contract there is a clause making the signer of the contract responsible for how the connection is used. In some areas people have been successfully sued for not making any effort to secure their wireless connections to their cable systems, likewise businesses have been successfully sued for using personal rate cable hookups for public viewing.

That's makes slightly more sense then. Probably just lost something in translation. The presumption of guilt still seems backwards. I'd probably agree as a civil/administrative it would not violate anything.

I'd be curious to know more about what the tribunals are considering for evidence. If they're using the warnings as prima facia evidence of infringement it seems wide open to abuse. Also whether or not the standard would be "no effort" or "not a reasonable effort". It could easily get into the judicially obtuse realms of "I'll know it when I see it."

The personal rate public rate would be more of a terms of service violation. I'd be surprised if they could maintain a good action against a user who had taken at least basic steps to secure the connection. It would be interesting though to see if it might be possible to get civil liability over another's criminal act. If I were a dishonest music company I'd just line up some good hackers to start creating infringers I can easily track for me and get the lawsuit mill rolling (I think someone suggested something similar already). Do the fines go back to the companies at all or do the fines stay in the judicial system so the judges get nicer chairs?

In NZ the responsible government agency says the law relates only to P2P file sharing. Which would make it a game of whack of mole, and everyone will switch to a streaming service, or something.

Interestingly, at a first reading the legislation is broad enough that anything over the internet could be infringing. Which instantly condemns the entire country for something.

And keep in mind guys, that we only have a population of just over 4 millions, so if "millions" were affected by this, every second person would be fined (or perhaps later, account disabled). It just wont happen here.

Also, copyright companies have to provide ISPs with a NZ$25 (about.. US$18) fee for each notice sent. So it could prove quite costly to run the scheme on a large scale.

Christ. I'm real tired of the "stealing" and starving artists arguments. Unless you're Metallica, KISS, The Who, or any other band who has been way too fairly compensated, you're benefiting from the new world order.

The rise of Napster, LimeWire, KaZaA and the other pirate favorites gave rise to Spotify, Rdio, Pandora and tons of other awesome, legal music services, and it's the best thing to happen to musicians and fans since the radio. Without Napster, there would be no iTunes. Instead of recognizing this obviously booming new industry to dominate, the record companies freaked out and sued grandmas, kids, and dead people. The record companies are less relevant every day, and its an absolute boon to society. There are less mega-rich artists, and a ton more full-time artists as a result. In addition, there is less money in the hands of record execs, who have generally been known as huge assholes since the 50s. All of this legal bullshit is the dying cry of an insatiable Methuselah. Great riddance.

In the words of Fat Mike, of the Fat Wreck Chords label, lead singer for NOFX...The dinosaurs must die.

I seriously doubt that "file-swapping" is infringement, as claimed in the piece. To use examples from the story, I buy a Rihanna mp3, someone else purchases a Gaga mp3. We then swap the mp3 files. The same can be done with cars, fruits or books.

If instead we're talking about piracy, then it literally becomes a different story. But that would suggest that the author is deliberately misleading the readers for motives yet undisclosed. Shouldn't they be? In most places, a journalist or editor would have a lot of explaining to do, quickly, if he chose to misinform the readers by characterizing the theft of a car as "borrowing" it, or the kidnapping of a person as "accompanying" them. Even if the writer/publication passionately believes the activity should be allowed, it should still be reported on accurately. That's setting aside the obligation to disclose having so powerful a bias to the readers (or assigning the story to someone who can be more objective).

The new corporate Nazism, conviction without due process or proof. Any government worth its salt, would look at protect its citizens and demanding further legally obtained proof. But no, our so-called democracies are owned by their corporate masters including the MPAA and RIAA.

In the meantime the real pirates, those making a profit from it, are routing their piracy through different countries and ISPs and are smart enough to hide their tracks, are unaffected.

So do music labels think they're helping their case by cutting people off their internet connections?

Personally if I even got one strike I would never even consider buying from that label again. I would go and tell all my friends too. All these draconian laws only create resentment that will spread within families and to friends.

I have boycotted all big content MAFIAA for many years now.As far as RIAA Music goes I have not purchased one artist who has signed with RIAA since the 1970's.That is because I have been a long time musician of punk rock and have been involved with punk since 1976.I went to punk because of bland manufactured corporate rock and krap disco music.Punk was a breath of fresh air and brought back the DIY Spirit of the mid-60's.As far as MPAA and movies for around 5-7 years I have been an active boycotter.The only way I watch a movie,etc is to buy it used and physical.I refuse to sign up with any ITUNES,NETFLIX,etc as that will give them money nor do I ever buy new MPAA DVD/Blurays.I buy all my stuff used and they the MAFIAA never see a dime from me.A Big Middle Finger points in the Air to the MPAA/RIAA !!!

At least corporate america inc will like them again, still can't park a nuclear sub there, but hell, no one is gonna download 'born in the USA' for free anymore.

I'd like to see how this law plays out in an actual court. People should pay the bands directly and cut out all the insane middlemen clinging to the last century.

Picture this, when I sell a painting, I get one fee for original purchase, if my painting is resold after that I get nothing. no one defending my rights. Perhaps I should charge 0.99 every time someone wants to look at my artwork. Signed musicians are the most spoiled of all artists on the planet. Just go a make your own music, sell it yourself and be glad you can make a living from what you love most, or is it all just about money?

Also, copyright companies have to provide ISPs with a NZ$25 (about.. US$18) fee for each notice sent. So it could prove quite costly to run the scheme on a large scale.

The contents holders have been trying to get ISPs and the government to join in on some kind of facility that is suppose to just sit there handling infringement notices in return to totally waiving the NZD25 fee.

It's not a criminal statute it's civil. There is a tribunal so I'm guessing preponderance of evidence, not assumed guilt, so you start with the charges by the complaining party and you have to move the evidence to 51% in your favor to win. A bill like this would probably not get passed here but it would be legal since in your contract there is a clause making the signer of the contract responsible for how the connection is used. In some areas people have been successfully sued for not making any effort to secure their wireless connections to their cable systems, likewise businesses have been successfully sued for using personal rate cable hookups for public viewing.

You have 3 strikes and you are sent to the copyright court on your 4th. On 3 strikes, you are not allowed to complain; you are allowed to refute it but it's at the discretion of the rights holder to accept it or not. I had a brush with similar system back when section 92A was "prematurely" implemented by my ISP when my refute was totally ignored (in fact nobody seems in the ISP to even know the details).

On 4th strike, you have to prove that you were not responsible for the infringement. Now, normal course of justice usually goes that the accuser provides evidence to the wrongdoings of the accused to convince the court. With current system, the role is reversed. This means that accuser DON'T need evidence to convince yet the accused the evidence to convince otherwise. The system is so ready to be abused with false accusations that it's almost laughable if it wasn't so sad.

Hopefully the judges will know what they are doing but looking at NZ politicians and their escapades (Melissa Lee, Jonathan Young) , I don't have much hope.

Don't know if this is the right approach, but something still needs to be done. The comments that Pete Townshend made recently ring true to me (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-201 ... l-vampire/), and I've heard the same thing from multiple artists at various levels of "success". Regardless of folks feelings about the big, bad labels, loads of artists are the ones paying the heaviest price within the declining music industry.

The labels still make their money, but now they insist in artists footing the bill for all the early years by developing a large fan base and showing good touring success before they will even sign anyone. At that point artists can stay indie and have "moderate" success, or sign with a label if they want to break big (yes, it still makes a difference to have the backing of the labels resources). Most artists never make it to that point.

Everyone was so concerned about the lousy contracts artists would sign that made the labels rich and left the artist in debt. Now the artist is just incurring all the debt up front by trying to do everything themselves, plus they have much less time to do music sabotaging their chance for success. Artists used to be developed by labels and have around 3 albums to "make it" while they developed. This has all but vanished.

If you steal music you are still hurting the artist. If you like someone's work, just pay for it so they can keep making music for a living. Most recording artists are just trying to make enough so they can do this full time. New Zealand's approach may not be the answer, but I applaud the fact that they are making an effort.

Nope I don't think so. You are saying that we need to go out and buy the music so the artist can survive. That is B.S. I'm not paying 25.00 for a CD so the artist can get .50.

I dont want a label to "make" an artist, I want the artist to be talented and stand tall on its own successes. What you stated doesn't scare me, its exactly what we want. Good ridden!

I have heard some amazing local bands that would never have a chance with a label, or would have been changed so much they would have lost what charm their indie local nature gave them. I for one want less Justin Beiber's and more Deertick's.

I am not too sure if I understand what you are saying. You don't want a label to "make" an artist, but you want to download their songs anyway?

The things that people say to justify downloading the justin biebers and lady gagas of the world. If I was so anti-label, I'd be ashamed of having those songs in my collection

Say if I got got last strike for downloading Rihanna, and I got a letter saying I need to go to the copyright tribunal. In NZ, format switching is legal, meaning we can rip a CD or DVD. What if I went out and bought the album I was accused of downloading, with cash, and said that I owned it before I downloaded the mp3s, then used that as defence?